This page contains material related to a presentation at the Web Accessibility Best Practices Evaluation Training in Lisbon, Portugal on 5 July, 2005, as part of the WAI-TIES Project (WAI - Training, Implementation, Education, Support). It is not intended to stand-alone; rather, it is primarily provided as reference material for participants in the training.

Scope of Training and Materials: This one-day training focused
on select topics that were particularly suited to the circumstances of this
specific training session. It did not to cover all aspects of evaluating Web
accessibility, and did not cover all Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
1.0 checkpoints.No Endorsement or Recommendation of Evaluation Tools: W3C/WAI does not endorse Web accessibility evaluation tools and does not recommend one tool over another. Some tools were listed, demonstrated, and used in activities in this training. Mention of a specific tool does not imply endorsement nor recommendation. WAI does provide a comprehensive list of Evaluation, Repair, and Transformation Tools for Web Content Accessibility.

How the Components Relate

Image description: Illustration with labeled graphics of boxes, content, and people. At the top center is a pie chart, an image, a form, and text, labeled 'content'. Coming up from the bottom left, a line connects 'developers' through 'authoring tools' and 'evaluation tools' to 'content' at the top. Coming up from the bottom right, a line connects 'users' to 'browsers, media players' and 'assistive technologies' to 'content' at the top.

Interdependencies Between Components, Example

When One Component is Weak

Image description: Illustration with labeled graphics of boxes, content, and people. At the top center is a pie chart, an image, a form, and text, labeled 'content'. coming up from the bottom left, a line connects 'developers' to 'content' at the top by going around 'authoring tools'. Coming up from the bottom right, a line connects 'users' and 'content' at the top by going through multiple 'browsers, media players' and 'assistive technologies'.

Accessibility Feature Implementation Cycle

Image description: Illustration with arrow going from content at the top through authoring tools at left to content at the bottom, and an arrow going from the content at the bottom through assistive technologies and user agents at the right and back to content at the top.

WAI Guidelines

Image description: Illustration with labeled graphics of boxes, content, and people. At the top center is a pie chart, an image, a form, and text, labeled 'content'. Coming up from the bottom left, a line connects 'developers' through 'authoring tools' and 'evaluation tools' to 'content' at the top. Coming up from the bottom right, an arrow connects 'users' to 'browsers, media players' and 'assistive technologies' to 'content' at the top. Below these are 'accessibility guidelines' which include 'ATAG' with an arrow pointing to 'authoring tools', 'WCAG' pointing to 'content', and 'UAAG' pointing to 'browsers, media players' and 'assistive technologies'. At the very bottom, 'technical specifications (HTML, XML, CSS, SVG, SMIL, etc.)' forms a base with an arrow pointing up to the accessibility guidelines.

International Standards Harmonization

Terminology

Harmonization = adoption of unified international standards

Fragmentation includes

Dropped requirements

Different wording

Combined requirements

Additional requirements

Within national, regional governments; organizations

Why different standards developed

Discomfort with standard not developed locally

Belief disability requirements different locally

Lack of authorized translations

Often, organizations just want to write own standards

Thought bubbles

“gee, we never thought about having to revise our standards as
technologies evolve...”

“gee, we never thought about the authoring tools and evaluation
tools not supporting our standards...”

Impact of fragmentation

On tool developers, Web content developers, organizations, …

Different guidelines complicate

Takes more time & effort

Hurts business case

End results of same effort are less

(An excuse)

Harder to track obligations across divergent sets of requirements

Impact on authoring tools

Features incorporated based on consistent demand

Similar issues for:

Authoring tools

Evaluation tools

Browsers, multimedia players, other user agents

Assistive technologies

Web developers

Organizations of all kinds

Web accessibility standards

harmonization, benefits

fragmentation, challenges

Additional harmonization benefits

Broadly-applicable, re-usable,

Tools

Training materials

Technical assistance resources

Promote understanding & acceptance

Learn one set of guidelines and tools

Path to Standards Harmonization

WCAG 2.0 as convergence target

Range of participation

Meet broadest needs

Address more advanced technologies

Easily understood, implemented, translated, tested

Broad understanding of issues & importance

Adoptions of unified standard

You can help

Promote understanding of harmonization issues

Participate in WCAG 2.0 in development

Actively encourage local and national policy to support harmonization

Roll forward to WCAG 2.0

Participating in International Efforts

Take advantage of open, multi-stakeholder, consensus-based forum at W3C WAI